Debate contribution: The Coronavirus Act 2020 (Registration of Deaths and Still-Births) (Extension) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025

Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on .

MLA
Mr John O'Dowd
Party at the time
Sinn Féin
Date
6 May 2025
Type
Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business
Executive Committee Business
Heading
The Coronavirus Act 2020 (Registration of Deaths and Still-Births) (Extension) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4929542

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

As Members will be aware, the order seeks to expand powers that were introduced in the Coronavirus Act 2020 relating to the registration of deaths and stillbirths for a further six months until 24 September 2025. The specific powers that are included in the order concern the way in which registrations are conducted. First, they enable individuals to choose to register a death or a stillbirth. Although they can opt to come into a registration office in person, the provisions give the next of kin a choice to do that over the telephone in their own environment, recognising that it can be a hugely stressful and distressing time for family members. Secondly, the powers enable participants in the registration process to exchange important documents electronically between a doctor and the registrar and between the registrar and the undertaker. Those exchanges can happen electronically, lessening the burden on family members. It will be clear to the Assembly why those provisions were important in the context of the pandemic. The temporary changes to the registration process reduced the need for face-to-face contact for grieving and sometimes vulnerable members of the public and for registration staff. They enabled the registration system to continue to operate, even when the services were, sadly, under significant pressure. In the five years that have passed since the start of the pandemic, however, the arrangements have become the normal means by which the vast majority of the registrations take place. They have helped the registration process to be more empathetic, efficient and productive, and they carry the support of stakeholders. Most importantly, the provisions ease the burden on grieving members of the public. When someone is coming to terms with the death of a loved one, we should not burden them unnecessarily. While offering them a choice about how to register a death and conducting some of the paperwork electronically might seem like small things, they can make a big difference. In short, though the powers were introduced as the pandemic took hold, they have become the established means by which deaths and stillbirths are registered, and they have helped the registration service to become more empathetic, modern and efficient. Given the positive effect of the provisions, it is right that we should look to make the temporary powers permanent rather than continuing to depend on the Coronavirus Act. We have used the time that was provided by the earlier extension order to progress the permanent powers. The Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill, which passed its Second Stage in the Assembly on 7 April 2025, will provide for the electronic transfer of documents between stakeholders and for the registration of stillbirths by telephone. The Bill will also enable me to progress a baby loss certificate scheme, which recognises the suffering of families who endure the pain of pregnancy loss before 24 weeks. Members will know that losses early in pregnancy are not recognised by existing legislation and that, currently, only losses that take place after 24 weeks are provided for. Those losses cause real pain and heartache for parents across the community, and I am determined that we should recognise them in a similar way to schemes in Scotland and Wales. The Bill will provide a legal basis for a new voluntary scheme, which we will consult on later this year. Regulations will set out how it will operate, and the required delivery mechanisms are being developed by my officials and in the Department of Health. The Bill will also rectify the differences in registration processes for some couples. Today's extension order will, consequently, provide the time that is required for the Assembly to consider the Bill and make permanent the powers in the Coronavirus Act. It will also afford space and time to make provisions for a baby loss certificate scheme and provide the time that is required to allow the primary legislation to complete its passage. As was set out in earlier debates on these matters, I understand the concerns of some Members about using the continuing extension. As has been seen in today's statement, however, and through their own reflections, Members will be aware that the Bill is making its way through the Assembly. Its progress will depend on the Committee for Finance and the will of the Assembly. I commend the order to the Assembly.

733 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.

  • Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
  • None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
  • Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.91).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
  • The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.

This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.

Jev’s structured answers

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.02No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.01No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.02No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.91Yes
Overall judgement0.02At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.49
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.28
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy0.21
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.01
Another identity-related subject0.01

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:26 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification